Is Stem Cell Research Ethical?

Is the destruction of preexisting pre-embryos permitted for stem cell research?

Today, a man lies dying of liver failure in a hospital. There is little expectation that he will be one of the lucky few to receive a transplant before he becomes too ill to save. Even if he did receive a transplant, he will be burdened with taking multiple anti-rejection drugs for the rest of his life, which in and of themselves would significantly compromise his health.

Tomorrow, scientists develop a method to build this man a new liver, one that would be a perfect match for him, requiring no anti-rejection drugs whatsoever. There is a catch. To perfect such a solution would require the destruction of other lives. Would Judaism sanction such a solution?

Jewish law clearly forbids the taking of one life to save another. The Talmud forbids saving one's life at the expense of another by asking how one knows that his life is more valuable than his neighbor's. Perhaps your neighbor's life is more valuable.

When The Fetus Is A Threat To Life

One may kill someone who is unjustly pursuing a third party to kill him.

But, what if the life that would need to be sacrificed was that of a fetus? May we permit abortion to save the life of an already born person? The Mishna clearly states that if the life of a woman in labor is threatened by her fetus, the fetus should be aborted. But once a portion of the baby has emerged, we may not abort the fetus, because "one may not set aside one person's life for the sake of another."

The principle behind this ruling is that one may kill someone who is unjustly pursuing a third party to kill him. Since the fetus, who is not yet considered a "complete" person, is "pursuing" the mother in a way that will inevitably result in her death, we may kill it first. But, once it has even partially emerged, it is considered a full-fledged person. Now we are faced with a dilemma, states Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, one of the most respected rabbis of the 20th century: who is pursuing whom?

When Pursuing Each Other

Imagine that you are transported back in time to Weehawken, New Jersey, on July 11, 1804. As you step out of the time machine you see Aaron Burr, pulling out a revolver to shoot Alexander Hamilton, former U.S. Treasury Secretary. Simultaneously, you see Hamilton also drawing his revolver to kill Burr! What should you do? Kill Burr? Kill Hamilton? Jewish law would rule that you may kill neither, because they are pursuing each other and you do not know which one, if either, is an innocent party.

In our case of the baby struggling to be born at the expense of the mother and the mother struggling to survive at the expense of the fetus, are not the baby and the mother each "pursuing" the other? In such a case, the general rule is that we may not choose either, since each is a complete and autonomous person, and each is both the pursuer and the pursued. Luckily for us, these scenarios are very rare occurrences in our day thanks to Caesarian sections.

A life-threatening situation for another adult does not justify killing a fetus.

But, since the rationale for abortion in Jewish law is based on the fetus being a pursuer of the mother, a life-threatening situation for another adult would not justify our killing a fetus, since the fetus does not threaten the life of anyone except the mother. Therefore, we cannot allow abortion, even to save the life of our patient with liver failure.

Destroying "Pre-Embryos"

But there is hope. What if the scientists "merely" needed to destroy excess fertilized eggs from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures that are only a few days old and have not yet been implanted in a woman's uterus? Is the destruction of these "pre-embryos" ethically acceptable to us? That is exactly the debate that currently rages regarding stem cell research.

While stem cells can be derived from aborted fetuses and even adults, the best source for stem cells is the small clump of cells that compose the early zygote only a few days following conception. Therefore, to best investigate the latent possibilities inherent in stem cells, scientists wish to use the approximately 100,000 "excess" frozen pre-embryos that are "left over" from earlier IVF attempts. Is it ethical to allow the destruction of pre-embryos to obtain stem cells for research that may some day save thousands of lives?

Early stem cells have the ability to differentiate into every cell of the human body, potentially forming an entire fetus. If we were able to manipulate the conditions controlling cellular differentiation, we might create replacement cells and organs, potentially curing illnesses such as diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease.

But, the ultimate promise of stem cell technology would be to combine it with cloning. Imagine our man dying of liver failure. If we could clone one of his cells, but instead of allowing the cloned cell to develop into a fetus, we might place it into the appropriate environment that would cause it to differentiate into a liver that would be virtually genetically identical to that of the sick man. If we could "grow" this liver to maturity, we could offer the sick man a liver transplant without the risk of rejection and without the need for anti-rejection drugs.

Unfortunately, we still do not know if we can successfully clone a human, nor are we sure what practical value can be derived from stem cells. It will require years of very expensive, labor-intensive research to determine the potential that stem cells hold for the treatment, palliation, and cure of human illness.

Are "Pre-Embryos" Included in the Prohibition of Abortion?

Is it ethical to sacrifice pre-embryos to experiment with their stem cells in the hope of some day saving many lives? While many ethical issues arise, the key one is whether pre-embryos are included in the prohibition of abortion. The consensus thus far is that it an embryo is not protected by the limitations on abortion until it is implanted in a woman. Most rationales given for why the Torah forbids abortion, except to save the mother's life, revolve around the fetus being within the woman.

An embryo is not protected by the limitations on abortion, until it is implanted in a woman.

The logic of only ascribing humanity to an embryo once it is implanted in the womb is simple. Left undisturbed, an embryo in its mother's womb will most likely continue to grow and reach parturition. But the pre-embryo created by IVF, if left untouched in its "test tube," will die. The pre-embryo requires active intervention to even reach a situation which we consider to be true potential life. The alternative to this reasoning would be to argue that the killing of adult skin cells is forbidden, since a person could potentially be cloned from any cell in an adult's body.

Another Rationale

Additionally, there is another sound reason to allow destruction of pre-embryos to save a life. When necessary to save a life, Judaism requires us to transgress all of the laws in the Torah, with the exception of murder, adultery, and idol worship. For example, if someone is gravely ill on Yom Kippur, we would drive in a car to get them non-kosher food even if necessary to save their life. If a pre-embryo is not covered by the Biblical commandment of "thou shall not murder," then we might allow destroying a pre-embryo for its stem cells if it would save the life of an already born person. We are left with the question of whether research is considered the saving of a life. This argument becomes even more appealing if concrete life-saving medical treatments can be demonstrated.

For these as well as many other reasons, many contemporary halachic decisors have ruled that the destruction of preexisting pre-embryos for stem cell research is permitted (see my more extensive article on stem cell research and Jewish Law: http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/stemcellres.html)

Cheapening the Value of Human Life

Nevertheless, many Rabbis oppose the deliberate creation of pre-embryos for the purpose of their destruction, as this would cheapen the value of human life.

The halachic process offers fascinating insight into all areas of ethics, including biomedical ethics. It gives us the opportunity to evaluate the explosion of technology that surrounds us through the lens of the Torah, insuring that we remain the masters of our science and not vice versa. Judaism has no issue with technology. It only requires the ethical and responsible use of science to better our lives. Let us pray that tomorrow, our patient with liver failure will be cured.

Related Articles:

About the Author

Dr. Daniel Eisenberg is with the Department of Radiology at the Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia, PA and an Assistant Professor of Diagnostic Imaging at Thomas Jefferson University School of Medicine. He has taught a Jewish medical ethics class for the past 15 years. Dr. Eisenberg writes extensively on topics of Judaism and medicine and lectures internationally on topics in Jewish medical ethics to groups of all backgrounds. Obtain more information on scheduling a lecture or learning more about Jewish medical ethics by visiting Dr. Eisenberg at www.daneisenberg.com

Visitor Comments: 132

(117)
HWolf,
March 5, 2013 3:09 AM

I think that the title of the topic answers the question. If we are asking this question, we probably already internally realize the answer is no. Many things are considered ok nowadays in the name of medicine & cures. I disagree & believe there are limits & that these advancements should not supercede the Torah. If our forefathers were around today, they would probably be amazed that we even think upon such things as they knew where the healing comes from.

hello,
June 20, 2013 11:42 PM

that is a stupid comment.

(116)
etiami chris,
February 19, 2013 1:59 AM

where in d torah is pre- embryo not given personhood?

u hav lied just to make ua point. It seems u reached a conclusion even before attempting a research. Can u show me where the Torah atleast speaks about invitrofertilization? What is the ethical stands of invitrofertilization in the first place? Did the Torah ever said a 'pre-embryo is not a zygote? What differentiates a pre embro from an embryo, test tube? How did it get into the testtube in d first place?

(115)
Louis,
January 17, 2013 3:30 AM

Embryonic Stem Cells May Be A Moot Point

Adipose or fat tissue contains 100 to 1000 times the concentration of stem cells as does any other tissue in the body. All tissues contain stem cells. The stem cells from fat tissue are multipotent and can form bone tissue, muscle tissue, cardiac muscle tissue, cartilage, nerve tissue, vascular tissue, etc. Currently they are treating damaged cardiac muscle tissue with stem cell injections and the result is new functional heart muscle tissue. Stem cells injected into the intervertebral spaces grow new intervertebral discs. The patient uses his own fat extracted stem cells for his own therapy. No rejection issues there. This is known as autologous transplants.

(114)
Anonymous,
October 7, 2012 7:58 PM

Stem cells obtained via cloning possible

Stem cells can and have been obtained by converting human skin cells into a pluripotent stem cell. The only problem with this is that these cells tend to become cancerous and lack the receptor protein tyrosine kinases. Scientists know now that they can actually insert a human diploid cell nucleus into a ovum that lacks a haploid nucleus and it will develop into a human embryo.

(113)
Rebecca C,
September 13, 2012 3:40 AM

Human life does not lose its value just because it's not in a nurturing environment

Most of this article is well-reasoned, but the part about destroying 'pre-embryos' doesn't make sense. By now, biology is understood well enough to know that as soon as a sperm and egg come together in fertilization (whether in the womb or in a test tube) that constitutes a new individual human life, with all the genetic coding that it needs to develop into all it's different stages, from ebryo to fetus to toddler to adolescent to adult to elderly. I've heard that Jewish belief is that from the moment of conception (fertilization) a soul is present and so from that moment on, we are talking about a new person. Even if that person has only developed enough to be a 'pre-embryo'. The question is not at all whether there is human life, or indeed a unique and new human life (which is not present in the skin cell of an adult, but which would be present in a true clone). All that is required of every stage in human life to develop into the next is the right nurturing environment. But just because we have not allowed that life to be in a nurturing environment does not make that 'pre-embryo' any less of a human life. It is simply the first stage of life that each of us goes through in our human development. And at all stages a human life is a human life, complete and exactly what it should be at that stage. So your rationale for saying it would be ok to kill these lives is unfounded. The environment in which we are in, even if it limits the potential we have for the future stages of our life does not negate our lives. Imagine being in a place where we have no escape from death - would that make it ok to kill another person who is also in this situation? It would still be wrong to intentionally kill them. Just so with these pre-embryos. (and to be straight - embryos are still embryos whether in the womb or in the test tube. to call them 'pre-embryos' only serves to dehumanize them).

Kim H.,
October 18, 2012 8:57 PM

Loved what you wrote. Logical and thoughtful.

(112)
Feigele,
May 1, 2012 3:16 PM

Anonymous not so Anonymous!

What I said is: killing anyone is against the bible. I did not say “wars”, which are unavoidable at times. Even with an “anonymous” name, we can recognize the writing and whose opinion it is behind it. So maybe, better read it right next time before judging.

Qannayah,
June 1, 2012 9:55 AM

Killing is not going against the holy scriptures, you have to kill clean animals to eat, and prosecute those who have transgressed against the law, however, Murder is against the holy scriptures... There is a difference!

(111)
Anonymous,
April 23, 2012 7:00 PM

Thankyou

I was really encouraged by this article and the comments. Don't stop writing the truth about the worth of these babies. It was nice to see a different view from all the rest online. God bless you.

(110)
Claudia Carr,
December 15, 2011 9:22 PM

Use of embryonic stem cells

As uncomfortable as we may be with it, use of embryonic stem cell for the use of theraputic cloning and stem cell research is invaluable. Whilst stem cells may be destroyed, the potential for a cure it may give to millions who suffer from destructive illnesses is immesurable. If the destruction of embryonic stem cells is not ethically acceptable it follows that neither IVF nor pre implantation genetic diagnosis are ethically acceptable either. That would indeed be a travesty.

Rebecca C.,
September 25, 2012 3:56 AM

human life is invaluable

One of the greatest arguments I've heard against embryonic stem cell research was made by a Jewish man, Dr. Green, who commented that although he was atheist and even pro-choice when it comes to abortion, he still could not condone embryonic stem cell research, because it reminded him of the grave injustices of the Nazi's who also destroyed human life in the name of science. Never is it ok to intentionally destroy human life, even in its earliest stages (or perhaps especially in its earliest, most vulnerable stages) to benefit others. This is because God, who made every human life in his image and likeness, loves each of us infinitely and for our own sake, and we are not to use any human being as a tool, even if we think it will benefit millions.

(109)
Feigele,
December 11, 2011 5:20 PM

Pros and Cons!

In every war, there are casualties! The soldier who kills to defend his life is also guilty for killing another human being, which is against the bible. Should he let others kill him just for the sake of complying with the bible?
When taking medicine, you know it has side effects but the doctor tells you that the benefits overcome the side effects.
Life has always two choices, the pro and the con, it’s a matter of making a decision based on rational judgments and what prevails.
As much as dreadful it is for scientists to make decisions to save lives, I am sure they are aware of the particulars that are involved, but as architects of science, they must keep on searching for stronger ways to sustain lives.
G-d might not be pleased to see death anywhere, but at the same token, he must be pleased to see lives being saved.

Anonymous,
March 1, 2012 2:26 AM

Really?

Okay saying war is against the bible is stupid. There are wars in the bible, God even tells isreal to go to war with people for example, when the people of isreal enter the "promise land" God tells them to war with the people of the land and take it over. The bible does not teach pacifism either in Ecclesiastes 3:8 a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace. I completely agree with you, every war has casualties just use a better example next time and do some research.

Anonymous,
May 6, 2012 6:47 PM

Dont quote the bible, if you don't understand it

Obviously you haven't spent much time reading the bible if you think killing whatsoever is wrong. Use a different example, for example, something you can actually understand.

(108)
Anonymous,
December 4, 2011 12:08 AM

But what does Torah imply?

We can get a solid answer directly from HaShem. A person's life experience begins when egg and sperm meet. Why else would Sampson's mother be told to begin a Nazier's diet BEFORE she had even conceived? Human life is sacred and is not to be messed with. HaShem does not bless embryonic stem cell research, why else has there been nothing but cancers created by it?

(107)
Anonymous,
December 2, 2011 8:13 PM

Value of life? Look up value in the dictionary, please.

Human development begins at fertilization when the sperm meets the egg to form a zygote. This highly specialized totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. You claim that human embryos are not humans until they see daylight. Embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why does that matter? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than smaller ones? Size doesn't equal value. Yes, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. Why does this matter? Four year olds are less developed than fourteen year olds. Should older children have more rights than younger ones? Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? Change of location does not change value. Every life is valuable and designed by God. Isn't everything that derives from God, good and valuable? Embryonic stem cell research and cloning is wrong. After all the research that has been done with ESCR, it has been proven that embryonic stem cells are hard to control once implanted and often form tumors. Adult cells can be extracted without harming the donor. Adult cells have proven to be much more useful and are significantly more safe than those of a human embryo. I am not opposed to stem cell research. But I am opposed to the kind of stem cell research that requires killing defenseless human beings so that others may(allegedly) benefit. Embryos don't come from stem cells; they are living human beings who have stem cells. And extracting these cells is lethal for the tiny subject. You didn't come from an embryo...you once were an embryo. Human life should not be treated as a commodity. The gift of life is beautiful and should be protected.

(106)
Richard Wald,
November 22, 2011 6:56 PM

Stem cell usage is acceptable

We are talking about possibly prolonging human life and alleviating or preventing suffering as opposed to a theoretical possibility of a human life resulting from the stem cells. We should come down on the side of helping the all ready born.

(105)
Janet Estrada,
November 2, 2011 5:39 PM

what is the bottom line issue?

What is the real issue here? If embryonic stem cell research is based on the usage of embryonic tissue already conceived in the womb of a human then absolutely it is a matter of moral ethics and murder. However, if it is pre-emryonic, meaning the seed of a man extracted and the egg of a woman extracted, put together in a petri dish, and cultivated for the purpose of research and saving a life, then it is not a matter of ethics or morality but of accountability and responsible use of the resources which God has given us to save a life! I do not see the cultivating of our seeds as immoral. I see it as an awesome and beautiful gift from the Lord of Harvest to plant our seed and save a life!

(104)
Bob,
November 2, 2011 12:03 AM

This is a questionn you have to ask yourself...if that was your child dying of liver disease would you be willing to sacrifice the life of anothe who is not yet born? There is a lot to consider when formign an opinion on embryonic stemcell research and it is important to know your facts and consider allt he circumstances and lives that could be saved by obtaining these cells

(103)
Anonymous,
October 10, 2011 3:20 PM

some where over the rainbow...

i think stem cell research is and okay thin i mean god does thing for a reason, and when one thing dies a nother is born.

(102)
Beverly Kurtin,
April 5, 2011 7:22 PM

It's enough to make one quit

This hair splitting is enough to make me want to throw up my hands in disgust and scream. I used to work in a hospital where one of my duties was calling on judges to issue orders to force Jehovah's Witnesses to take a transfusion. A transfusion is NOT drinking blood which is prohibited in Leviticus seventeen.
A similar situation exists here. I hae printed up a bumper sticker that says, "Stop Abortion: Use Birth Control." All abortions are caused by men. If a man did not impregnate a woman, there would be nothing to abort. Mad man Christians who want to make abortionists a capital offense are just that: MAD MEN. There was a situation not long ago where a law was proposed that would make killing of a person who had agreed to perform an abortion a target for killing. I just love those folks who say they are "pro-life" and then go kill someone who is going to do something they don't like.

(101)
SusanE,
March 23, 2011 4:37 PM

Still studying Stem Cell Use and Research.

None of us lives forever. We die young and we die old. We die from accidents and from 'natural' causes, and from diseases. Sometimes we die by our own hand or at the hands of another human. Stem cell research and stem cell use doesn't save lives. It prolongs life. There is a difference. I've been studying the ethics of using stem cells from lab embryos that were conceived for that purpose. My opinion hasn't changed~~~ that it is an unacceptible even a horrible act of violence against something that can't defend itself.
Last time I looked it still takes a living sperm and a viable egg to conceive a human. That life in the sperm is straight from G-d. To combine it with an ovum to conceive a human life outside a womans body, and then by mans hand destroying it.... is simply wrong.

Anonymous,
October 14, 2011 4:18 AM

I disagree a human Embryo at about 2-3 Weeks has no brain, no conciseness and It is not Viable Becas=use It can not survive outside the womb. Furthermore Stem Cell Research has lots of value to humans knowledge of Biology. As for God giving life to a sperm, I am utterly apposed to that idea because a Sperm cell is just another piece of Nature/ Biology which is created through meiosis not the act of a "God"

Anonymous,
December 7, 2011 4:07 AM

True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But why is this relevant? Four year old girls are less developed than fourteen year old girls. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if thats true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer's disease.

SusanE,
March 4, 2012 11:42 PM

Well put.

Eric,
November 3, 2011 7:35 PM

Well put.

(100)
Anonymous,
February 17, 2011 5:01 AM

other alternatives

Umbilical cords and placentas can also be used for stem cell gathering. There is no need to use aborted fetuses, or even Zygotes which have to potential to become fetuses, as this only condones abortion and the creation of life to sacrifice to save another

(99)
Anonymous,
February 13, 2011 1:35 PM

inspiring

I was really inspired when i read this document.it showed me that its not really that bad to study stem cells before i was against it but now i think it should be carried on if it saves lives like the man with liver failure, i mean it would be shame if it didnt work and scientists couldnt actually save people like him who are in risk of losing their lives which is sad actually because some even have hope of being cured.i guess its true what they say whatever scientists do there is both good and bad in it .everything in life comes good and bad.so i guess im in stem cell research only to some extent.

bob,
November 2, 2011 12:05 AM

conversational

I agree with you despite the moral and ethical issues the countless lives that can be saved have to be taken into consideration when forming an opinion on stem cell research

Anonymous,
December 7, 2011 4:12 AM

No matter how much you read and try to convince yourself...embryonic stem cell research is wrong. Research that destroys one human being so that another may benefit is wrong. We can pursue the treatment of disease in morally acceptable ways. You are not just dealing with cells here. You are dealing with beautiful human lives. Human life begins at the moment of conception. This is murder.

(98)
Jeremiah,
January 5, 2011 3:16 PM

PRE-EMBRYOS

In my opinion I am for stem cell research but only to a certain exstent. Such as I am not for using aborted fetuses for it, because that fetus had brain function and it could feel. But I am for using pre-embyos because these embryos are only a few days old even if they were 3 days old it would only have 16 cells ONLY 16. Which means if this egg was in a woman then it wouldent even have brain function yet. Not just that but there are no bones, no eyes, no limbs, or hair. It is just as alive as a plant, it is alive yes but thats all. I mean if someone cut down a tree people would not blink an eye but if someone used a fertilized 3 day old embryo which is just as alive as a tree people freak out. I mean I think abortion is wrong and all but I dont think that can clasify under the category of abortion. What do you all think?

(97)
hey,
December 11, 2010 8:28 PM

ok this kinda helped me with my project but im still wonderin why some people view the use of stem cells in researh and medicine unethical? and im doin my project on cancer and how stem cells affect cancer treatment etc. I need a quick summary of the answer and i cant seem 2 find it anywhere!

(96)
Rita,
December 11, 2010 6:10 PM

When does life begin?

According to the Torah, when does life begin? I have always thought that life begins at conception. Is the conception not recognized if it occurs in a laboratory verse in the human body? It seems to me that this is the biggest question in the stem cell debate.
What are your thoughts on this?

Anonymous,
December 7, 2011 4:16 AM

Conception

Human life definitely begins at the moment of conception. From conception onward, the human embryo is fully programmed, and has the active disposition, to develop himself or herself to the next mature stage of a human being.

(95)
Rosie,
November 21, 2010 2:26 PM

YOU can save a life!

Whilst doing this research, 1000's of people will die waiting for a transplant. And what if this research isn't succesful?? If you are fit and healthy, and within a certain age range, please consider donating a live organ. It is the greatest gift yo can give someone. "one who saves a life is as if they save the whole world"

(94)
Mark Gary Blumenthal, MD, MPH,
November 9, 2010 1:42 PM

Halacha Gives us Sound Guidelines for Living

Permit me to offer the following parable about stem cell research. Suppose you are a scientist working in a stem cell lab along with other colleagues. The blastocysts are stored in a protected area. A fire breaks out in the lab, and you must decide between saving your colleagues and rescuing the stem cells because you cannot save both. What is the correct choice? Isn’t the choice obvious?
Pluripotent stem cell research offers the prospect of vital, life-saving therapies while violating no medical or Jewish legal principle. It might be aesthetically preferable to culture adult skin cells, but there is already convincing evidence that differentiated skin cells, even if they can be 'convinced' to revert to stem cell status, do not work quite as well.
Medically necessary abortions uphold the same Jewish legal principles that allow us to utilize any method to save the life of the mother until the baby has crowned. Some may argue that the limits of extra-utero fetal survival been pushed back toward the beginning of the third trimester via NICU technology. I acknowledge that consideration, and recommend against third trimester abortions if there is an equally effective alternative to protect the mother’s health. If not, I see no barrier to termination up to the point of parturition.
Elective abortions prior to the third trimester are a less ‘loaded’ issue. In Judaism, we do NOT own our bodies. Although I am not qualified to comment on the spiritual benefit/cost ratio, the physical and psychological risks to the mother of early pregnancy termination appear by all trustworthy standards to be small. I do not believe on 'abortion on demand' for spurious reasons, but have no problem recommending abortions when they conform to the halachic, medical and legal standards for women's health care. We stand at the vanguard of halachic medical feminism. I consider it a mitzvah and appreciate the opportunity. Mark Gary Blumenthal, MD, MPH Knoxville, TN

(93)
Anonymous,
September 27, 2010 9:10 PM

right question?

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions. If fertilized human eggs are going to be destroyed if not implanted is it ethical to fertilize more eggs than the woman can carry to term?
When a friend underwent this procedure she had the understanding with her physician that he would not attempt to fertilize more eggs than he felt she could carry to term. As she said, “everything that goes out goes back in!” He removed six eggs, all of which became fertile. Four settled and began to grow. At about six weeks one died. We were very sad to know there were three children we would not know. After 30 weeks three healthy children were born. (Doctors think that is about the normal ratio of fertilized eggs which do not develop in a normal woman) After birth the umbilical cords of those children could supply stem cells with no ethical dilemma at all. In fact there are hundreds of proven treatments being used successfully today which employ umbilical cord blood stem cells. Why go where we need not go?
The umbilical cord blood stem cells are from life, not death. Maybe that is why they work! I am not aware of any successful experiment using embryotic stem cells, which are derived from death of the embryo.

Anonymous,
December 7, 2011 4:19 AM

Terms

"Fertilized egg"? This term is very misleading. Once fertilization takes place, sperm and egg cease to exist. They surrender their constituents into the makeup of a new human organism.

(92)
Yosef Moshe,
September 25, 2010 12:57 PM

Some have missed the point of this artical.....

Some have missed the point of this artical which raises some very important issues in both religious and medical as well as, is it ethical. Now I am not a doctor, nor am I a scholar, but this I know as I was reading this artical and listening to the Spirit of HaShem, it is permissable that the destruction of preexisting pre-embryos for stem research is permitted. I would also surgest to all to log on to Daniel Eisenberg's webb site at: http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/stemcellres.html for a more in depth understanding on the issues at hand. I thank you for this articale and also Dr. Daniel Eisenberg's comprehensive artical on the above issue. It has given me a greater understanding of the complexities of the issues which I have been troubled with for some time.

(91)
Elena,
June 16, 2010 5:54 PM

>When reading this article, I was mortified to read about cloning a cell to grow a fetus into order to grow a liver for the patient.
You totally misread the article.
Unimplanted pre-embryos cannot become fetuses unless they implant in a woman's uterus. The are collections of cells, little more sophisticated then cells you might floss out of your teeth. They require human intervention to become implanted, or they die.
There are thousands of these cell clusters in freezers in this country that will have to be destroyed or used. How is it more ethical to incinerate "potential human life" than to use it to help others, even save lives? What harm does it cause, and to whom?

(90)
Anonymous,
May 26, 2010 3:37 PM

NOT OK

not ok it is unavoidable you are still killing a baby I am agents abortion to so no matter what you are killing a baby For a since experiment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and I am not religious

(89)
Olina,
May 22, 2010 5:08 PM

Life begins at conception

Sorry, but I do not think it is ethical to use embryonic stem cells. When reading this article, I was mortified to read about cloning a cell to grow a fetus into order to grow a liver for the patient. There are some places science should not tread, one of them being growing humans in labs. The thought of "growing" a fetus simply to harvest an organ sounds like something out of a sick horror movie. What has society come to, that we can stand the thought of human embryos being grown in Petri dishes?
I know that we have a lot of excess fertilized eggs from IVF and that this raises an ethical dilemma as to what should be done with them. People figure that using them for research to help people is better than throwing them away. Yet, a lesser of two evils is still an evil. How can we use a human embryo for research? How can we create or grow life with the direct intention of destroying it? It is true that these excess eggs could not survive on their own, but they are still fertilized. I think it is wrong to take eggs out of a woman and fertilize them, knowing only a handful of them will actually be placed back in the womb to grow. The rest of them will be frozen until people decide what to do with them. I agree with the person who said if we aren’t sure if they are considered people, it is better to let Hashem decide. We don’t have the knowledge and power to make these kind of judgment calls.

(88)
Anonymous,
May 14, 2010 1:09 PM

Stem cells are different from cancer cells in that in cancer cells the mechanisms in the cell which regulate growth have been bypassed in one way or another to allow the cells the replicate indefinitely. Usually these cells are already differentiated. Stem cells are not differentiated. Also their growth, from what I've understood, is defined by their environment and signals they receive from it and so their growth is controlled, unlike cancer cells. If someone was to get a liver transplant made with stem cell technology, the firstly, when implanted, the cells wouldn't be undifferentiated anymore but would have differentiated into liver cells and, secondly, they would again be "in control", both by their internal mechanism and by external growth factors etc. Therefore, from what I've learned about this, there is no reason to expect that one would get cancer from implants made from stem cells.

(87)
Anonymous,
May 13, 2010 2:16 AM

The First Question Should Be, Do Stem Cells Really Work?

I always wondered if embryonic stem cells really work; I mean, if they are really "pluripotent," doesn't that mean they have the ability to grow unchecked, and in effect, out of control? I finally got an answer to this question when one of my teachers in nursing school told the class that embryonic stem cells can, indeed, grow out of control, and become, in her words, "cancer cells". (Because, as we all know, the main defintion of cancer is body cells growing out of control.) Soooooooo, why is science trying to make it work, when the risks are so high? (I mean, would a person rather a spinal cord injury or spinal cancer?)

(86)
Briana,
May 10, 2010 5:24 AM

To Kevin:

Adult Stem Cells actually don't have more promise. They cannot differentiate into every type of cell, but Embryonic Stem Cells can. Thats why scientists are trying so hard to get to be able to conduct research on Embryonic Stem Cells.
As far as my opinion goes, an embryo doesn't have a mind or its 5 senses or anything else so its not alive yet. Being alive is being able to reason and think. That embryo doesn't have any of that.
And i know everyone has their own opinions, but sometimes you have got to make people think. If you don't believe me go read Inherit The Wind because its a story of another controversy.

(85)
chris,
April 30, 2010 12:00 AM

for or against stem cell research

im am doing a doing a for or against stem cell research and i am for it for i have been saved by stem cell reasearch. for i had cancer at the age of 13 and i am now the age of 16 and if it where not for stem cell reaserach i would not be hear rite now so for all of you that say it is unethical and that it is murder it is not for the fact the embryos are not even remotly human untill two weeks of age. and who ever embryo saved my life i ow my gratetud to them for the life that could have been later on saved mine.

(84)
Laura,
April 26, 2010 7:14 PM

I'm also doing a research project on stem cells to either be for or against it.With all do respect, I differ with some of the people stating their opinions. Stem cells are taken from the embryo. This situation does affect everyone in one way or another because one should understand cultual diversity, and the many other confounding variables of taking stem cells from the "pre-embryo". Fact is, pre or post it's an embryo alright.

(83)
Chanan,
April 12, 2010 12:23 PM

Mulitpotential, nonembryonic adult stems cells

BS"D Since 1995 I have been involved in research indicating that adult, pluripotent (multipotential) stem cells exist in the brain and can be used for regenerative applications to brain diseases and injuries. These are not embryonic stem cells; rather, they are cells naturally found in the areas of the brain involved in learning and memory. This presents a viable alternative to embryonic stem cells and its attendant controversy. Let's daven that Hashem will allow this work to yield therapeutic results for those who are ill and injured.

(82)
Kevin,
April 11, 2010 9:00 PM

I understand both of your situation, but you have to remember that all of us at one point were an embryos what if you were one of the ones developed to be used as study. With a sucess rate of zero why are we wasting time and money we have other issues at hand. Also with the alturnitives there is no need for the research adult cells have more promise anyway. i understand ur bias but you have to think of the situation as a whole

(81)
Briana,
March 22, 2010 3:48 AM

Ethical or Not

I'm 14 and doing a research semester project on stem cells.
I believe that stem cell research is ethical because scientists are figuring out that stem cells may cure many diseases.
Testing on embryos is not like dissecting a human that's alive. The embryo isnt even formed enough to wear it can be called a child. Im sorry if you don't feel the same way i do, but everyone has there own opinions.
For the people who listen to others' info and take their advice on stem cell research; you need to do some research for yourself and decide on your own if this is unethical. Many people don't know what stem cell research is doing and learning so don't form opinions before you learn a little more about this debate.

(80)
Anthony,
March 18, 2010 8:44 PM

I'm 14 years old, and I'm doing a big report on this for school, which makes up a major portion of my 2nd semester grade. I personally feel this controversial topic is ethical. I have a 20 year old brother, and he suffers from cerebral palsy. He is crippled in the hands, but he is a drummer and artist two things that mainly require the hands, and he is a prodigy, he is just amazing at what he does, and he deserves the right to working hands, he would only be better. It affects his life and he can never stop thinking about it. Sometimes when I was young I would here him cry and it would hurt me so bad. this made me want to pursue stem cell research as soon as a found out about it. Could you imagine making someone who was damaged from day 1better again? The only sacrifice would be a child thats not alive, so I think these religious people should have a little to think about, because I not only want him to have hands, everyone does. So I think this is very ethical.

Anonymous,
December 7, 2011 4:25 AM

Other ways.

Research that destroys one human being so that another may benefit is wrong. We can pursue the treatment of disease in morally acceptable ways. This has nothing to do with religion. It is simply the value of human life. Life begins at conception and the killing of precious, defenseless humans is morally unacceptable. I am terribly sorry about your brother. But there are other ways to seek out treatment that do not involve murder.

(79)
Bernadette,
March 12, 2010 9:07 PM

Embryonic/stem

Even the tite is misrepresenting the topic.
Stem cell research is ethical and moral.
EMBRYONIC stem cell research is immoral and unethical,

(78)
SusanE,
March 5, 2010 3:14 AM

To Answer the Original Question.............

.No................ There should not be existing pre-embryos stored outside a womans body. To fertilize a human egg outside the body, IVF, is acceptable to me IF that one or two eggs are then transplanted into the woman to begin what can become a full term pregnancy. To have fertilized human eggs stored somewhere that will eventually be disposed of in ANY other way, is an affront to me. ------------------------- To use the stem cells from an early spontaneous natural abortion would be something that could be considered. -------------------- It used to be that some of us lived a short life, some of us lived a long life. Either with or without disease. We still do. That fact hasn't changed. We should be eradicating the reasons we get diseases like cancer and heart disease and viruses. We are still going to die or get disease whether we get new organs or not. That's the way the world works. ------------------ With a great respect for ethical medical research, NO to killing the embryos that shouldn't be in the labs in the first place..

(77)
Claudia Carr,
March 1, 2010 8:25 PM

essential progess

Not only is stem cell research ethical, I believe it is essential in order to attempt to find the answers and potential cures to crippling diseases which strip patients of their dignity and hope. We should not be put off by the slippery slope arguments and trust in UK legilsation that permits such research within tightly controlled boundaries.

(76)
italia,
February 26, 2010 12:21 AM

i think that stem cell research is assisting the many who have severe ailments and wish to be cured which isint such abad thing as compared to abortion.those embryos are going to get disposed of anyway,might as well just use it for a rather meaningfull purpose.

(75)
Beverly Kurtin,
February 21, 2010 9:55 PM

Why?

Why did Hashem give us the intelligence to extend life? So we should ignore it or kowtow to Christian sentiments who consider a clump of cells a human life? I'm personally revolted by the deliberate waste of pre-embryos when they could SAVE LIVES. I have a condition similar to Parkinson's. Thankfully, it is not life-threatening. But with the proper application of a few cells could cure the affliction.
Surplus cells left over from IVF will die just as certainly if they are used or not used, so why not use them for the benefit of human beings who are already alive but will die if the left overs are just flushed down the toilet like a dead goldfish?
Feh!

(74)
Azeem,
December 13, 2009 8:44 AM

Ban must be on usage not on research.

To put ban on embryonic stem cell research because scientists will produce chimeras, hybrids of human and animals I think it is not correct. Because it would be same as putting ban on usage of atomic energy as it could be used in making an atom bomb. Now atomic energy has been used in power generation, medical, agriculture and bio-technology. As there is a worldwide ban on making atom bomb but not on using atomic energy, in same way there should be ban on usage of embryonic stem cells like formation of chimeras, hybrids of animals and human. Regarding next concern on destroying human embryo for the purpose of research is same as putting ban on creation of these embryos in infertility clinics. As these extra created embryos must be dying on one or another day. Instead of destroying, these can be used in stem cell research for the treatment of debilitating diseases.

(73)
Kepha and Miryam ben Ephraim,
December 6, 2009 12:04 AM

When does a human embryo become a human?

We are struggling with such things as stem cell research. When does a human embryo become a human. Does our Father not say that before He formed us in our mothers womb that He knew us? How far does man go before he encroaches on that which God Himself should have absolute authority? We feel that maybe we humans are building towers of Babel rather than seeking Him first.

(72)
karol Delmar,
May 19, 2009 12:29 PM

Embtyonic stem cell research

We have to look even farther ahead. What is permitted today opens the way for what will be permitted tomorrow. Already scientists are trying to make chimeras, human animal hybrids, an unimaginable source of evil in the future. These cells are their raw material. Science says what we can or could do, but it does say what is ethical to do. Adult stem cells have already been used successfully, and have the wonderful advantage of not being rejected by the body, if they are taken from the same person. This avoids the horrifying possibility of humans being farmed for their parts, humans of no value because they were raised from throwaway cells. You will say that this is not ethical, but it will surely happen if we don't put the brakes on now.

(71)
Sarah,
April 19, 2009 5:02 PM

To Savannah - - - - -

Savannah, I do not agree with your statement. The seed carries life. It just needs a little support to help it get going just like an embryo. You're pretty much saying that a sixth month old isn't a person because it can't feed and change itself.

(70)
Joe,
March 19, 2009 11:06 AM

In response to Elisheva

Dear Elisheva,
I need to make a point about biology.
The fetus does not magically develop into a baby without effort just left on it's own.
I am surprised at your use of the word "ACTIVE" in capital letterss in your response to me. While a pregnant woman does not do any of the the things she does for the fetus consciously, she is most certainly very actively providing for the fetus every minute. She breathes for it, eats for it, digests for it, processes it's metabolic waste, and provides a protection from the outside world with her own body. It iakes a lot out of her and is a tremendous expenditure of energy on her part. Any mother will tell you this is so.
She is most certainly extremely active. She is not just an incubator. The fact of the matter is that if she stopped doing any of these things, the fetus would die.
Now, I am not saying that implantaion is completely irrelevant. I am saying that if the standard is viability, it is not consistent with the other argument posed by the author.
Further, all of this specualtion about the future is not the way that halacha works. We judge in the present.
Consider Ishmael. Why did Hashem rescue him in the wilderness? He knew that Ishmael was going to grow up to be unpleasant and that his descendents would cause a great deal of problems for the house of Israel.
What does the tradition tell us? While Hagar was busy crying that Ishmael might perish, Ishmael did Tsuva - and here is the important point - and Hashem judged Ishmael *as he was then*. Much rabbinic ink has been spilled over this point about the way judgement gets done.
So, to carry that through, what is the zygote in the present? What is the embryo in the present? What is a baby about to be born in the present? The important question, once again is which is a full fledged person? All other questions - as far as halacha is concerned- are secondary.

(69)
Elisheva,
March 18, 2009 2:53 PM

Response to Joe

Joe, interesting thoughts. However, I think the point about the zygote in the test tube vs inside the mother was just that if the zygote were left alone inside the mother, nothing need be done ACTIVELY to end up with a live baby. (Prenatal care is necessary in this day and age, but it is certainly possible to have a child without it!) On the other hand, if a zygote is left alone in a test tube, it cannot possibly grow into a viable baby. Of course, if you remove the 1 month old embryo from the womb, it will die. But the point, as I understand it, is that the implanted zygote has the potential without any human intervention to grow into a live being, whereas the test tube zygote does not.

(68)
Joe,
March 17, 2009 7:10 PM

In response to Avram

I appriciate your response, but I believe you missed my point. What matters is that the halacha are consistent with each other.
The reason why the moment of personhood is so important is very simple, before personhood is reached you are not killing a person, afterwards you are. Honestly all other questions a secondary to establishing this point.
If you are not killing a person, then the injunction to live by Torah and not die by it takes a very strong position in order to save lives. If you are, then you have a totally different case.
As to the issue, we need to look at the significance of 40 days vs. heartbeat. I was very surprised that the article did not go into this.
Now as to the cases you have brought up:
1. We have no time travelers. If we did, your analogy would still be faulty. It is based on the assumption that the embryo will grow up to be a sweet person. Jack the Ripper was an embryo too at one point.
I am actually not trying to be too flippant here with that analogy either. In a very deep sense, we are not the ones to judge. We can only follow the mitzvot of the Judge. Perhaps the embryo that would have been the next Jack the Ripper now saves lives...
2. As to preventing future human life, there is the rub - future is not present. If a pregnant woman is injured and miscarries, is the offending party charged with murder? The answer is no. By your reasoning it should be yes.

(67)
Michelle J.,
March 15, 2009 4:29 PM

Cord Blood and embryos

Firstly, to address the point of using umbilical cord blood stem cells in lieu of embryonic stem cells, cord blood stem cells only yield blood cells. While this has been used successfully to produce blood cells, this cannot be used to help our poor liver patient. The benefit of embryonic stem cells lies in the fact that they are pluripotent, undifferentiated cells, which have the potential to produce any type of cell, provided certain factors are manipulated. The potential is immense. Thus far, the limited research conducted with embryonic stem cells has not had success, but this is not sufficient reason to write it off. The potential is there, and with more research, amazing things may yet come from it.
As for the ethical concerns of experimenting on embryos, these are embryos that have been produced through IVF methods, but have not been implanted, nor are they going to be implanted. They are sitting in a freezer because they cannot be left to die (which is what would happen if left alone), but they are also not to be implanted. These embryos are in "limbo" so to speak. The ethical concern seems to lie more in the first formation of these embryos that were not implanted, rather than in their use for research. Should they remain in the freezer indefinitely? If the potential to save lives exists, this does not seem to be a good choice.

(66)
Savannah,
March 14, 2009 9:42 AM

Stem Cells

I am not a doctor nor a member of any medical community, my opinion is a stem cell is like a seed. Until it is planted it has no life, no branches, no leaves, no life giving properties. A stem cell is given life when it becomes a part of that human being regardless of where you planet it.

(65)
Avram,
March 13, 2009 1:43 PM

RE: #60 Joe

Joe, I think the "ikar" of the ruling of the zygote in the test tube vs. the zygote implanted in a woman is in the phrase "left undisturbed." There most certainly is a difference between an embryo left undisturbed while implanted in a womb and an embryo left undisturbed outside of that environment.
You declare anything other than defining the moment that the zygote/embryo/fetus attains "human" status as a waste of time. I disagree. Judaism works in every dimension, including time. Therefore, its answers may seem like pretzel logic to someone only looking at a temporal snapshot. Here's a question: If you walk past a large plank, and standing next to the plank is a time traveler who says, "thank G-d that plank is sitting right where it is, because in two days there will be a flash flood and a child swept up by the water will be saved by grabbing onto this plank." From an ethical standpoint, if you then went and removed the plank, wouldn't that be wrong? You're not actually killing a person, but you are taking an action that will prevent a life from being saved in the future.
Similarly, if you remove an embryo that is implanted in a woman, you may not actually be destroying a "human" in the process--whether you are or not is beyond my pay grade--but you are taking an action that will prevent a future life. Isn't that wrong?

(64)
Linda Wolfe,
March 13, 2009 10:16 AM

EMBRYONIC stem cell research

It is my understanding that until this very day there has been no embryonic stem cells that have grown into usable tissue. Thus far, all of the cells have resulted in cancer. All of them. On the other hand, umbilical chord stem cells and adult stem cells have had some very promising results. The news media has been very thoroughly overlooking this fact. If we would simply follow the areas of research that have shown the most promise, embryonic stem cells wouldn't have to be used and this would be a mute point.

(63)
Tova saul,
March 13, 2009 8:24 AM

Thanks

Thank you. I've been curious about this, and now I know the answer and the logic behind it.

(62)
Chandler,
March 12, 2009 4:56 PM

Ethics

I question the validity of what is defined as a "complete human being". If a new born baby is smaller and lessed developed does that make it a "less complete human being"?..or is it just at a different stage of life. The next question is who is competent enough to define that? In a situation where the mother must chose between the life of her unborn child and possibly her own..it is exactly that "her choice". Just as any parent would have to make a choice to save their childs life knowing that they will in turn loose their own. It's my belief that as soon as the egg has been fertilized the human "divine" spark has been ignited.

(61)
Jeannette Zipes,
March 12, 2009 3:47 PM

Agree with some

No way can you take any life that G-d had a hand on.They are using Adult Stm cell and are finding out it works so why use destroy a life and choose who gets well. Leave G-d plan alon . i agree with the Rabbi's who honour life.
G-d Bless you and let us keep praying and be able to confornt evil even if it is convient to be a god.

(60)
Joe,
March 12, 2009 2:41 PM

There were bits in this article where a little more science needs to be applied.

Let's start from some first principles. A zygote does not have a human heart, because it does not yet have a heart. A zygote does not have a human mind because it does not yet have a brain. The real, and only important question, which this article does not adress, is at what stage of development does a collection of cells that has human features recognizable only to a genetic analysis stop being a collection of cells and start being a human being? That is the real question. All else is a waste of time.
The rational that a zygote takes a different status once implanted is interesting, but on the basis of viability (as presented here) is not logical. A zygote in the test tube would indeed die on its own -so would a one month old embryo if removed from the womb. No present technolgy could save it. Therefore, if viability is the standard, then there should be no issue with an implanted embryo either.
It is implied by this article that Torah would consider the implanted zygote to be a full fledged human. Again, it has no heart and it has no brain. I am bringing up heart and brain purposefully, because of the halachic significance of when when we consider someone dead. One might argue that if one does not have the equipment to be considered alive, (halachicly) then one might be in a different halachic state than a viable human with a heart and mind.
I am not trying to get into a deep halachic argument per se. However, I do want consistency in what I am told is halacha.
I am absolutely glad that the rabbinate is interested in using science to save lives - and thus permits the notion of stem cell research. However, as a scientist, I sometimes cringe at rabbinic pretzels that overlook clear application of scientific principles in favor of of fitting a square scientific peg into a round halachic hole.

(59)
Esther,
March 12, 2009 2:35 PM

This article presents too narrow a view of Orthodoxy's allowance of abortion.

Dr. Eisenberg muddies the waters when he writes that once a fetus is partially-born it is considered a person and one may not abort it even to save the life of its mother.
But luckily, a situation like this almost never arises. In reality, those rare situations in which a woman's health is compromised by being pregnant usually arise well before the moment of actual birth. Jewish law not only permits but mandates abortion when a pregancy threatens a woman's health.
He also doesn't state strongly enough that IVF and stem cell research ARE allowed by Orthodox Jewish authorities (in the case of IVF usually with supervision from a religious expert).
This is a fascinating and well-written article, but I don't want readers to come away with a false impression that Judaism is equivocal on these matters.

(58)
Simcha Mendel Freedman,
March 11, 2009 10:05 PM

STEM CELL RESEARCH IS PERMITTED

I saw a very reliable interview with a man who worked in the scientific field. Many years ago, he met with the Lubavitcher Rebbe. In their discussion, the Rebbe asked him why they are not doing stem cell research. The Rebbe spoke very highly of stem cell research.

(57)
Chaya K.,
March 11, 2009 4:37 PM

Masters of creation...?

What I am actually more worried about is, whether as Jews and as humans it is allowed for us to "create" human organs, parts of humans and whether itis "unfortunataly", as stated in the text, or luckily that we have no idea for now how to clone humans.
Isn't G-d the third partner in the creation of a new person?... And isn't life and death the way they are and their occurance the way they have to be due to Heaven's decision?....

(56)
Chana,
March 11, 2009 1:44 PM

Umbilical cord stem cells can be used with no threat of life to mother or child

(55)
Thomas Beck,
March 11, 2009 1:38 PM

Embryos not created to be destroyed

I would not support creating "pre-embryos" merely for the sake of research. But most come from fertility treatments and are going to be destroyed anyway. They exist already - we should be permitted to use them for research that may save lives in the future.

(54)
Keith C,
March 11, 2009 8:14 AM

There is no justification

Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.." These so called PRE-EMBRYOS are known by G-d. Just because man took the eggs out of the mother and fertilized them outside the womb doen't mean they are not known by G-d. There is NO justifiable excuse that these innocent existing babies can be destroyed to provide possible future cures for people.

(53)
Anonymous,
December 15, 2008 4:17 AM

Read the whole thing..

..and thank you so much! This helped me greatly on my social issues artwork.

ive read alot on stem cell research and you only get bits and parts of it this site has by far coverd the issues that most people have wonderd, thank you this will help me a lot in my schooling

(49)
DreaaBaby,
January 6, 2008 6:03 PM

Wow. I actually bothered to read the entire page.

I loved the insight on some other cultures religions. Very interesting.

(48)
bob,
October 24, 2007 8:34 PM

I LOVE THIS

this is good info. LOVE IT

(47)
Power-Puff Girl,
October 20, 2007 2:46 AM

Best Ethical Article

This is a very comprehensive and informative article. I am glad to say that you have enlightened me and informed me of the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research. This article has also made me think about where i stand in this ethical debate and what i believe to be right. Thankyou very much for this thought provoking article!

(46)
mariel,
April 18, 2007 2:54 PM

thanks

this artical really benefited me ; i'm giving a speech over stem cell research and your article enabled me to understand everything in detail.keep up the good work!

(45)
Anonymous,
March 29, 2007 6:33 PM

Use for the info

i really liked this article, it explained to me a ton of things i did not understand!!! But my question is if i could use some of this information for the debate im doing (i know everything about the piracy stuff, thats why i need to ask) Well e-mail me so i can find out.

just to be sure that i wont copy, paste anything, ill tell u that im in 8h grade.

thnx diego

(44)
iftekhar,
August 12, 2006 12:00 AM

very comprehensive material

i liked your materials.please mail me more history of research , ethical issues ,potential uses of stem cells regarding the topic.

(43)
Manasseh,
September 27, 2005 12:00 AM

Pre-Embryo cells - The demand is so great

I think that for medical science to advance, research should be allowed on pre-embryo cells. Hashem would not have allowed it if He didn't think it would have helped the millions of people who need this life saving treatment. Think about it. When you look at the virus, what do you see? A one cell wonder.
Very tiny. Almost useless except for one thing. This thing is alive. So for the pre-embryo cells.
In the past, research used to be restricted to things that we can see, hear, and experiment with.
Now, we have this ability to research the tiniest organisms. I am all for it because of its ability to cure people with diseases known to kill many more people.
Pre-embryo cells are not people who need to be kept alive simply because they are and should be considered cells with one redeeming power. That is the power to cure other people. Hashem would not have allowed this to continue if the researchers are destroying the cells with impunity. Why are we so afraid of using them for the benefit of humanity? The suffering is tremendous. We should be using this powerful miracle to save more lives.
Thank you.

(42)
Toshi Shimada,
April 26, 2005 12:00 AM

The big question

Hi. I think I agree with the comments and discussions that you have made in this web page. I personally believe that the big question to consider, is whether or not a pre-embryo can be considered 'a human life'. It is indeed a 'life', but you could debate on and on about whether it is morally correct to destroy a life to save one. Thus, the question to be raised is; how could you consider a pre-embryo a human life, before it has even moved on to the natural stage in life within the mother's womb?

(41)
kevin brennan,
January 31, 2005 12:00 AM

thank you so much

my name is kevin brennan and I am a student at Mc Clintoch high school in Tempe Arizona. in biology my class is curently holding a debate reguarding the m,oral and ethical issues of stem cell reaserch. several points that i have made in this debate have gone unnoticed because i simply did not have a source. but I have found them heere and when the information came from an MD then people listened and we won the first two days because of it. Thank you sir.

(40)
Anonymous,
January 15, 2005 12:00 AM

Interesting

I liked this article. I always wondered what the Torah's take on stem-cell research was. Now I know!

(39)
nurina,
January 4, 2005 12:00 AM

Useful

useful links for a student who needs research on ethical issues on stem cell research

(38)
Karen,
December 3, 2004 12:00 AM

liked the site

this web site helped me a lot when I was doing a research on ethical issues on stem cell research

(37)
leo,
November 16, 2004 12:00 AM

fascinating

very interesting article. I was wondering about this myself and am happy to learn the Jewish take on it.

(36)
CHAYA,
October 31, 2004 12:00 AM

REALITY

It is always good to philosophise about topics such as these , and having the luxury of beeing righteous .

But when you are 25 on a transplant list and wont know if you will make it , everything becomes much more realistic.

I would like to bring to people's attention that in the late 90's there was a popular drug prescribed to teenagers that would help them , given by dermatologists . Today it is a known fact that it destroyed many young lives , and damaged their vital organs .

Having a transplant is not a walk in the park , that is if you are lucky to have one . Secondly the medications that have to be taken slowly begin to do their damage .

Stem cell research could lead to the ability of growing organs that would belong to the person , there would be no rejection , or medications .

People have a full right to save their lives , especially when they suffered at the hands of the greedy pharmaceutical industry .

(35)
Earl Litz,
October 25, 2004 12:00 AM

stem cell research

From what Dr. Eisenberg has shared with us, I remained unsure what G-d would require in this matter. Isaiah told us that G-d knew us in the womb, but I'm sure Isaiah never envisioned what technicalites would be created through modern science. At this point, personally, I am against tampering with what G-d has created.

(34)
Eliezer,
October 24, 2004 12:00 AM

Response to Mr.White's point

In response to John White's objection that humans might become slaves if we are able to grow pre-embryos for 9 months with machines - if you read the article's wording carefully you'll see it says:

"[...] But the pre-embryo created by IVF, if left untouched in its 'test tube,' will die. The pre-embryo requires active intervention to even reach a situation which we consider to be true potential life. "

Now if we ever reach a situation where an embryo that's left untouched will not die but will indeed develop into a human (through the use of machines, etc.), then yes - such an embryo should be considered a potential life and can not be used for research. But until it is placed in that situation [being hooked up to a machine, being placed in an incubator, etc.] where if left untouched it will automatically develop into a human, it is an entity that will die if left on its own. According to the article's logic, this would be a reason to allow its destruction through research.

(33)
Miryam,
October 22, 2004 12:00 AM

Hum!!!

Who are we to say if a preembyo may become an embryo or not? isn't that like trying to play the role of G-d? What about the umbilical cords that are left after a baby is born? aren't those cords disposed? why can't we use the stem cells of an umbilical cord left over after the birth of a child for this kind of research? some people choose to have the umbilical cord frozen in a cord bank but not everyone chooses that because is so expensive, so why can't we use those stem cells to do this research? why destroy another life when we can use the stem cells of left over umbilical cords without destroying another life Dr. Eisenberg? or are you going to tell me this cannot be done when these stem cells obtained from frozen umbilical cords have been used to cure people with some forms of cancer and other illnesses.

(32)
Dwayne Jones,
October 21, 2004 12:00 AM

An abundant source of Stem Cells

From what I understand only Adult Stem Cells are used in treatment. Embryonic Stem Cells are not safe to use because they have caused tumors and their development into an undesired type of cell is extremely unpredictable.

On the other hand, what if there was a way through natural nutrition (Hashem's provision of food) for a person's body to produce an abundance of Stem Cells within their own body ?

This has been observed in FAS children and Type I Diabetes people to name a few. Stem cells can also migrate to the brain to become new brain cells. (JAMA Feb 19, 2003)

The abundance of Stem Cells produced internally is enabled by the availability of a new category of necessary nutrition called glyconutrients, specific carbohydrates that are not used for energy.

Research with glycoproteins is exploding. I suggest researching PubMed, the Library for NIH. There are over 400,000 articles on this and related topics. MIT Technology Review magazine has stated that this discovery will change the world.

Perhaps this offers hope to many who can not afford or do not agree with operations involving Stem Cells from other sources.

(31)
Dr. Jose Nigrin,
October 19, 2004 12:00 AM

killling embryos for life?

The stem cell research is still, in the category of achieving the formation of tissue organs, for transplantation. Until this becomes a reality, and practical cure, we can regard this as an unethical way of experimentation, without unknown results. We have to give the stem cell research the benefit of the doubt, and go ahead, but accepting the fact of killing a potential life in formation.

(30)
Miriam, Pittsburgh, PA,
October 19, 2004 12:00 AM

Partial-Birth Abortion, Exactly what does this mean?

What exactly is partial-birth abortion? Does that mean part of the baby has already emerged and therefore an abortion cannot be performed at that time to save the mother's life?

(29)
Anonymous,
October 19, 2004 12:00 AM

Thank you

I knew I could count on Aish.com to take a complicated raging contemporary issue and make it understandable, meaningful and relevant from a Jewish perspective. Thank you!

(28)
Anonymous,
October 19, 2004 12:00 AM

Dr. Eisenberg:

What a sensible discussion of a very difficult and yet crucially important series of complex medical issues confronting those of us in health care and those without.

You presented a splendid series of logical arguements regarding the potential involved in the circumstances for both good and the obverse results inherent in unchecked or unethical experimentation.

Compelling and cogent.

(27)
Daniel Eisenberg, MD,
October 19, 2004 12:00 AM

The question is not when life begins

Mr. White raises a very important issue regarding the term "pre-embryo." Too often, euphemistic terms are used to obscure the ethical significance of patently unethical actions. But, from a Jewish perspective, the terminology of pre-embryo is irrelevant and is only used because it describes the time after in vitro fertilization is performed and before the placement of the embryo in the uterus.
The question from a halachic perspective is NOT "when does life begin," but "when does HALACHICALLY PROTECTED life begin." That is, potential life of the human being begins before conception, in the form of the sperm and the egg. Put another way, if I could potentially take a cell from the inside of someone's mouth and clone a person from it, is every mucosal cell a "potential life," deserving legistative protection? Surely not!
The opinions brought in my stem cell article merely argue that these "pre-embryos" are not covered by the Biblical prohibition of murder. This does not in any way minimize the status of the pre-embryo. They are potential lives and since the there is not unanimity regarding the stem cell research question, it is best to err on the side of caution and not create these pre-embryos merely to be destroyed. But, once they are created as part of the in vitro fertilization process, then we must go after the great decisors of Jewish law, several of whom have allowed the destruction of pre-embryos.

(26)
Don Gambill,
October 18, 2004 12:00 AM

That which is right in our own eyes

It is amazing what we can rationalize in our own minds in order to soothe our consciences. My question is this, where will it end? If you allow research on the IVF "leftovers" what happens when the scientific community comes back and says that the sample isn't large enough, or that in order to procede they need samples from a broader cross section of society? What will be the next line we cross? Will the industry then pay for eggs and sperm in order to mass produce the quantity and genetic sampling needed? Where will it end?
And the serpent said, "...your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods..."

(25)
Jon White,
October 18, 2004 12:00 AM

Idea of 'pre-embryo' invented for political reasons only

To paraphrase a bioethicist teaching at a major university: The term pre-embryo is used carelessly as is the concept fertilized ovules.
In fact, the term 'pre-embryo' has had very little to do with scientific rigor since its appearance.
It was coined in 1979 by embryologist Clifford Grobstein, a specialist in the study of frogs, who admitted that in this way he wanted to 'reduce the status of the early human embryo'.
At that time, the birth of the first test-tube baby, Louise Brown in 1978 caused a proliferation of centers of in vitro fertilization.
Because of this, the then U.S. secretary of health, Joseph Califano, arousing ethical concerns about what was presented as human experimentation, called publicly for research on the early human embryo.
Then, Grobstein tried to resolve the concerns by declaring the early human embryo a 'pre-embryo,' namely, a non-person. (We should remember that, in the recent past, millions of Jewish persons suffered horrendously when burdened with the same libelous 'non-person' label.)
Subsequently the term was used in two important international venues: the Warnock Commission in Great Britain, directed to establishing the licit realms of human experimentation and techniques of assisted reproduction, and the Ethical Committee of the American Society for Fertility, of which Grobstein himself was a member.
Then, the scientific literature, both the specialized as well as the popular, appropriated the term, which soon became a most useful persuasive instrument of public opinion on the ethical innocuousness of embryonic manipulation.
In fact, in all the documents favorable to manipulation of the 'pre-embryo,' one can identify some criteria that justified its distinction from the 'real embryo,' which would appear magically on the 14th day of life and after.
Such criteria were based on the observation according to which around the 14th day of life some substantial novelties would occur in the development of the tiny human, such as the completion of implantation in the maternal womb, initiated around the fifth, sixth day after conception, or the increase of cellular differentiation.
But, in reality, biological research itself has established with certainty that such 'progress' in embryonic development does not represent substantial novelties, but is part of the uninterrupted evolution of the organism from the first instant, the fertilization, until the last, the person's death.
From the moment of fertilization and after, the human being has some fixed biological properties: coordination -- namely, the fact of presenting a functionally organized unit according to an established object and autonomously pursued by the organism's genetic program; gradualness -- namely, the progressive constitution through different phases of development of the final form of the individual, according to his own identity, individuality and uniqueness.
These arguments have met with broad consensus in the scientific community, to the almost total prohibition of the ambiguous expression.
Yet, in recent years, the attempts at massive distribution of the morning-after pill on one hand, and the interest in furthering research with embryonic stem cells on the other, have re-established the old debate on the human individuality of the early embryo, this time not strictly at the scientific level, but cultural and political as well.
In other words, we are before a great and conscious lie.
As C.W. Kisher states: The so-called pre-embryo is a false stage of human development invented by an amphibian embryologist for political reasons only. It has no credible scientific justification. Thus, the inclusion of this term into the language of human embryology has become a hoax of gigantic proportion.

(24)
Debby Parent,
October 17, 2004 12:00 AM

Excellent Article

This has made many things clearer to me and our family is going through a medical situation now. One life will not be put in danger to help another, only to give the other life. I feel more comfortable.

(23)
Elisa,
October 17, 2004 12:00 AM

Very good article, it really opened my eyes about this complicated subject.

(22)
Morry Levin,
October 17, 2004 12:00 AM

Thanks for the article. It helped clear and my confusion over stem cell research.

(21)
John D. Miller,
October 17, 2004 12:00 AM

Great article!

Thanks indeed for such a well written article that even I can understand!

(20)
Anonymous,
October 17, 2004 12:00 AM

This email gave me much needed information

Thank you for this information.

(19)
gabriello marchetti,
August 2, 2004 12:00 AM

great!

This is a great point of view, where jewish ethicism,Torah, and humanism
(scientiphic research and progress)are togheter for human life .Great!

(18)
Rabbi Krustolzky,
July 27, 2004 12:00 AM

We cannot play God

God has put us on the earth to enjoy life, in all its pain. To do such things is to insult the processes he has put in place and make our value much less.

(17)
JESSICA KELLY,
January 12, 2004 12:00 AM

THANK YOU THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE PROVIDED ME WITH HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO ME EXPECIALLY IN MRS.BOWMANS CLASS

(16)
Billy the Kid,
December 11, 2002 12:00 AM

Stem Cells are good

How can we judge the destruction of something does not yet completely exist as bad. If these have the potential to cure devastating diseases and save live why are we even arguing. The debate should be no more magnified than that of abortion. To create stem cells you destroy the fetus, just as you do when you have an abortion, and the fetus is not a human. I personally value a human over something that is not yet A HUMAN

(15)
Anonymous,
November 5, 2002 12:00 AM

I needed this exact information for a term paper. Thank you so much!

(14)
miguel sanchez,
May 13, 2002 12:00 AM

your website gave me so much great info thankyou very much!

(13)
marcia cooperman,
November 18, 2001 12:00 AM

excellent article

the article gave me information which i wanted regarding the jewish view of stem cells & stem cell research.

(12)
Gloria Filkoff,
November 17, 2001 12:00 AM

It seems that if the present supply of pre-embryos is going to die on its own or be destroyed because their owners no longer need or want them, then they absolutely should be used to restore the health of living persons.

(11)
Janet Miller,
November 17, 2001 12:00 AM

Blessed are you G-d master of life and death.

I agree with the person who believes that life should not be conceived in a test tube and with the person who favors research with cord blood. What ever happened to the part of the AMIDAH that states "Baruch atah adonai m'chaye b'hameytim"? It is my belief that G-d alone should decide who conceives and who does not. If my genetic material is meant to be passed along to another individual, it will happen in the natural manner. If potential parents were as selfless as some claim to be, in the case of infertility, they would at least try to adopt. There are couples at my synagogue who have adopted foreign born and hard to place children.
Is there no more to Judaism anymore than the mitzvah of pru'urvu? I have known personally women who have been 'treated' by IVF--one who had an apple shaped body type which, at best, is a body with hormonal imbalance; one who smoked cigarettes and sat on abdominal pain which turned out to be gallbladder disease and was over 35 at the time--you get the picture. Isn't respect for human life or knowledge of the identity of the baby's father also part of Jewish teaching (if an anonymous sperm donor is used, it is very hard to break this anonymity)? I believe IVF itself is wrong. Therefore, I am against stem cell research from embryos, but not with adult stem cells or cord blood.

(10)
Anonymous,
November 14, 2001 12:00 AM

"Excellent appraisal of halachic issue"

I've been looking and waiting for a clear explanation of the halachic issues surrounding stem cell research. Thanks for the effort.

(9)
margie eisenberg,
November 14, 2001 12:00 AM

All medical procedures were new once.......

Excellent article....while stem cell research is new, it offers great hope in the saving of lives....you say:
"thanks to Caesarian sections."...I'm sure there was plenty of controversy surrounding that too in the beginning...God has given us all we need..we just need to LOOK harder!!

(8)
Anonymous,
November 13, 2001 12:00 AM

"test-tube babies"

In response to the reader who said "We should not be playing around with conception via tubes" - Great torah leaders urge us to use all the technology available for help with infertility problems. Having a baby through IVF is also a direct blessing from G-d. Infertility problems is comparable to any other medical problem. When you are sick, you go to the doctor. You don't sit at home waiting for heaven to heal you - you have to do your part, and G-d will do His. There are many beautiful Jewish children born using IVF.

(7)
John White,
November 13, 2001 12:00 AM

Your Reasoning Could Lead to Human Slavery...

Your reasoning in the article "Is Stem Cell Research Ethical?" will lead to acceptance of human slavery when science is able to keep the "pre-embryo" alive and growing for 9 months with machines and without implantation into a woman. At that point, a living creature appearing to be a fully-formed human baby would exist. But this creature would not be a human being according to the Jewish law you quoted in your article, because the creature would not have emerged in any way from a woman's body. Hence, it would have no human rights, and therefore could be used by its owner as a permanent creature of servitude (slave.) This ugly conclusion shows (I hope) the fallaciousness of your argument. In your article, you even referred to the fetus prior to emergence during birth as a "baby" (which is accurate). The problem here is caused by the adult humans' postulating an arbitrary point in the continuum of human life prior to which it is not human and after which it is human. The fundamental reality is that it's a human being from conception, with a its own human DNA sequence. Treat the pre-embryonic human being with the respect due it, and the concept of human life will be that much less easily cheapened by those worshipping the god whose name is "Usefullness."

(6)
,
November 12, 2001 12:00 AM

What if we do not need stem cell research and alike? There are alternatives as natural hygiene etc. that helped me personally to avoid loosing my uterus. Many illnesses are the result of bad eating habits and not a misfortune. New treatments are not looking for the real causes (new treatments pay better). Baruch HaShem, I learned about these alternatives in time, so I do not have to live my life without children.

Besides, hospitals often create the complications that lead too often to Caesarian sections.

There are now many interesting web sites, e.g. about natural hygiene, unassisted birth etc... they are worth to take notice of.

Shalom from Israel

(5)
Anonymous,
November 12, 2001 12:00 AM

Very, very intersting!!! Thanks!

It is interesting to view the Torah perspective on new technology.

(4)
Lin Pyles,
November 12, 2001 12:00 AM

embryo's to save life

Why is this an issue at all? We should not be playing around with conception via tubes to begin with. I think HaShem made it very clear that He would bless us with children. Throughout Tanakh He opened and closed wombs. Sara took having a child into her own hands and convinced Avraham to concieve through Hagar. Ishmael, to this day, is still a thorn in his brother's side. Perhaps if we were not playing around with test tube babies the issue you discussed would be a non issue.

(3)
Anonymous,
November 12, 2001 12:00 AM

Other options

What about using the stem cell is cord blood (blood from the umbilical cord attached to the placenta)? I know they use this with certain types of cancer patients with good results. This does not risk the life of a pre-born child. This utilizes something that is usually just discarded. I have much less of an ethical issue with this type of research.

I am very concerned when we start to devalue any life. I look at our nation in despair. We've gone from abortion to save the mother's life to abortion for convenience and birth control. Now we are seeing more children abused and elderly abused. Not even to mention the push for the right to "euthanasia". Where will we stop?
Only HaShem gives life. Who are we to try to control this gift?

(2)
Robbie Scott,
November 12, 2001 12:00 AM

I believe that life starts at the moment the egg and sperm are united. A reproductive scientist said he could always tell which embryos took, because there was a minute, brief flash of light that occured in the sucessful ones.I believe it better to be over cautious than not. Let Hashem decide if the sick person is to live or not.

(1)
Anonymous,
November 11, 2001 12:00 AM

Stem Cell Research

Thank you very much for your thougtful comments. Although your statement about Burr/Hamilton is incorrect, your halachic insight was very helpful.

I just got married and have an important question: Can we eat rice on Passover? My wife grew up eating it, and I did not. Is this just a matter of family tradition?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Torah instructs a Jew not to eat (or even possess) chametz all seven days of Passover (Exodus 13:3). "Chametz" is defined as any of the five grains (wheat, spelt, barley, oats, and rye) that came into contact with water for more than 18 minutes. Chametz is a serious Torah prohibition, and for that reason we take extra protective measures on Passover to prevent any mistakes.

Hence the category of food called "kitniyot" (sometimes referred to generically as "legumes"). This includes rice, corn, soy beans, string beans, peas, lentils, peanuts, mustard, sesame seeds and poppy seeds. Even though kitniyot cannot technically become chametz, Ashkenazi Jews do not eat them on Passover. Why?

Products of kitniyot often appear like chametz products. For example, it can be hard to distinguish between rice flour (kitniyot) and wheat flour (chametz). Also, chametz grains may become inadvertently mixed together with kitniyot. Therefore, to prevent confusion, all kitniyot were prohibited.

In Jewish law, there is one important distinction between chametz and kitniyot. During Passover, it is forbidden to even have chametz in one's possession (hence the custom of "selling chametz"). Whereas it is permitted to own kitniyot during Passover and even to use it - not for eating - but for things like baby powder which contains cornstarch. Similarly, someone who is sick is allowed to take medicine containing kitniyot.

What about derivatives of kitniyot - e.g. corn oil, peanut oil, etc? This is a difference of opinion. Many will use kitniyot-based oils on Passover, while others are strict and only use olive or walnut oil.

Finally, there is one product called "quinoa" (pronounced "ken-wah" or "kin-o-ah") that is permitted on Passover even for Ashkenazim. Although it resembles a grain, it is technically a grass, and was never included in the prohibition against kitniyot. It is prepared like rice and has a very high protein content. (It's excellent in "cholent" stew!) In the United States and elsewhere, mainstream kosher supervision agencies certify it "Kosher for Passover" -- look for the label.

Interestingly, the Sefardi Jewish community does not have a prohibition against kitniyot. This creates the strange situation, for example, where one family could be eating rice on Passover - when their neighbors will not. So am I going to guess here that you are Ashkenazi and your wife is Sefardi. Am I right?

Yahrtzeit of Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (1194-1270), known as Nachmanides, and by the acronym of his name, Ramban. Born in Spain, he was a physician by trade, but was best-known for authoring brilliant commentaries on the Bible, Talmud, and philosophy. In 1263, King James of Spain authorized a disputation (religious debate) between Nachmanides and a Jewish convert to Christianity, Pablo Christiani. Nachmanides reluctantly agreed to take part, only after being assured by the king that he would have full freedom of expression. Nachmanides won the debate, which earned the king's respect and a prize of 300 gold coins. But this incensed the Church: Nachmanides was charged with blasphemy and he was forced to flee Spain. So at age 72, Nachmanides moved to Jerusalem. He was struck by the desolation in the Holy City -- there were so few Jews that he could not even find a minyan to pray. Nachmanides immediately set about rebuilding the Jewish community. The Ramban Synagogue stands today in Jerusalem's Old City, a living testimony to his efforts.

It's easy to be intimidated by mean people. See through their mask. Underneath is an insecure and unhappy person. They are alienated from others because they are alienated from themselves.

Have compassion for them. Not pity, not condemning, not fear, but compassion. Feel for their suffering. Identify with their core humanity. You might be able to influence them for the good. You might not. Either way your compassion frees you from their destructiveness. And if you would like to help them change, compassion gives you a chance to succeed.

It is the nature of a person to be influenced by his fellows and comrades (Rambam, Hil. De'os 6:1).

We can never escape the influence of our environment. Our life-style impacts upon us and, as if by osmosis, penetrates our skin and becomes part of us.

Our environment today is thoroughly computerized. Computer intelligence is no longer a science-fiction fantasy, but an everyday occurrence. Some computers can even carry out complete interviews. The computer asks questions, receives answers, interprets these answers, and uses its newly acquired information to ask new questions.

Still, while computers may be able to think, they cannot feel. The uniqueness of human beings is therefore no longer in their intellect, but in their emotions.

We must be extremely careful not to allow ourselves to become human computers that are devoid of feelings. Our culture is in danger of losing this essential aspect of humanity, remaining only with intellect. Because we communicate so much with unfeeling computers, we are in danger of becoming disconnected from our own feelings and oblivious to the feelings of others.

As we check in at our jobs, and the computer on our desk greets us with, "Good morning, Mr. Smith. Today is Wednesday, and here is the agenda for today," let us remember that this machine may indeed be brilliant, but it cannot laugh or cry. It cannot be happy if we succeed, or sad if we fail.

Today I shall...

try to remain a human being in every way - by keeping in touch with my own feelings and being sensitive to the feelings of others.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...